Einstein

Imagine trading a pick and taking on all that money just to score 15 points and drop to 2-5.

I don’t see the ball moving at all until the 3rd step. It looks pinned to his forearm.

Negative acceleration doesn’t cancel out initial velocity. Negative acceleration is simply a change in velocity in the negative direction. The stumbler still has a velocity greater than zero, which means they’re ahead, even if they lose a bit of speed. Meanwhile, the “static” (your word) runner is starting from zero and has to build speed from scratch. Acceleration doesn’t just compound endlessly … there’s a limit, and once terminal velocity is reached, the stumbler’s head start gives them a clear advantage. Put short and sweet; Your wrong but you don’t have enough conceptual background to realize it.

No his 3rd step is when the ball came out.

I think you’re starting to see why the others are wrong, but to answer your last sentence - it still doesnt. A “static” runner isn’t accelerating at all, so calling them static while talking about acceleration makes no sense. The correct term would be a runner starting from rest. If a stumbler already has v0 greater than 0, they’re already moving, so their total speed combines v0 and their acceleration. The idea that the static runner will accelerate faster is irrelevant because the stumbler already has an advantage in initial velocity. You’re focusing too much on acceleration without understanding how initial velocity and acceleration work together in building speed. Which is pretty much what most people do and it’s frustrating to someone who knows what they’re actually doing. Put another way: It would be like one runner starting from the block and another runner (his competitor), already running as he crosses the starting line but he has stumbled a second before that. Because he has an initial velocity, the non-stumbler would need much greater acceleration to beat him. Advantage stumbler.

For the 5th time, we are talking about his velocity AFTER he already re-establishes post stumble. After he gains his balance. After he accelerates again.

I guess i’m not seeing his hand off the ball on step 2. I see the ball not move until step 3.

There were 3 full feet down before ball came out though.

Excellent decision on your part.

But he DID have control when crossing the plane. The ball didn’t move until after he was in the endzone.

This makes absolutely zero mathematical or logical sense. Keon was not impeded from reaching top speed AFTER the stumble. You keep going back to the stumble but we are talking about a 3.37 second stretch that does not include the stumble. More on this below. This quote is telling you exactly what I have told you. Do you know what acceleration is? Do you understand why this quote is telling you that acceleration is the most important part? It is telling you this, because acceleration is the part of the race where a runner is at their SLOWEST. In other words, you stating that removing the block/stance portion of the race affects time is nonsensical - because it would only affect time in a negative way. By removing the block portion of a race, you are cutting out a significant slow curve and making their average velocity FASTER - not slower. Because Coleman had already accelerated post stumble, the calculation we have is higher than if he started off from a block. This is akin to asking: When have you ever been a professional baker, when telling someone that you made cookies for dinner. If anything, physics and mathematics are for more important in this discussion than your experience running.

I agree that it’s technically not a catch if it happens in the normal field of play. But I thought as soon as the ball crosses the goal line, it’s play over? Am I wrong on this? If a runner fumbles 1 centimeter after the ball breaks the plane, it’s a TD. Coleman had 2 feet down, ball broke the plane, and then it came out.

Bingo! And well said. And we can prove it with v = v0 + a(t). Because v is dependent on a and t, it is not possible for a runner to be at their fastest while still accelerating.

He wouldn’t need a push off because he has already accelerated. Think of it this way: When is a runner at their fastest? The beginning of a 40 yard dash? When they are pushing off the block? Or the second half of the race, when they have already accelerated? Consider the first kinematic equation of motion.

For the 4th time: And. That. Is. Why. The. Calculation. Was. Done. AFTER! He. Regained. Composure. And. Was. Running. Again. Not immediately after he was done stumbling. Physics and Math can explain anything on earth that is scalar or vector-driven. Yeah they’re assuming that because they’re not reading what i’m writing. Instead they’re jumping to defend. I took that into consideration, as I stated in the very first post on the 40 time. It either went over their head or they just skimmed the post in haste to respond.

Reading comprehension is at an all time low on this board, goodness gracious. Again: 1) The 40 time was taken AFTER he stumbled and regained composure. 2) All 40 times start from rest. Aka, the equivalent of the period you would have directly after a stumble. Math says you’re wrong but i’m guessing you wouldn’t believed it even I showed you.

For some players it is - for example, Derrick Henry ran a 4.3 40, in game, a couple weeks back.

I can’t tell if you’re joking. I said that calculation was taken AFTER he stumbled and regained his composure. It was a 4.99 second per 40 yard run AFTER he was back running, post stumble.

I don’t think anyone is hating on him. We are saying that yes, he’s slow, but he makes up for it in other ways. He played well today.

I only have this season right now (about 80 games). Will add more if I have time.

After he fully regained his motion post stumbling, he went 27 yards in 3.37 seconds. That is the equivalent of a 4.99 second 40 yard dash. To put that into perspective, Spencer Brown ran a 4.94 second 40 yard dash. He likely would have been caught around the 10 yard line. @Doc - this is AFTER he fully gained composure post stumbling

Dude is slow as molasses. He makes up for it with a great catch radius, but he isn’t scoring even without stumbling. He had a 10 yard head start and the entire Titans backfield caught up to him 😂

You’re mixing up single occurrences and trends. You can hook up with a 10/10 once in a few year span. But you are not consistently taking home a 10/10. Teams across the NFL will on times come back from large deficit, or display drastically different success rates in first half vs second half, but they don’t do it every week. That is what is shocking about what we are doing. It has become a statistical trend. And you will see it in the comparison of the Bills vs other teams. I’m telling you that I have the statistical data that shows our outlier performance as compared to other teams and you still make comments like this? Genuinely surprising when people dig their heels in.

You said no different than other teams - perhaps you meant other Bills teams. This is something people say in an attempt to denigrate another person who has done work that disagrees with them. Do better.

Thats actually not true and I am going to post a thread this week with the full breakdown on how we are a statistical anomaly with how different we are playing in the 2nd half than first.